Case Digest (G.R. No. 63154)
Facts:
Sukarno Mawallil appealed the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City conviction for parricide, where he received reclusion perpetua and an indemnity of P20,000 to the heirs of his wife Sophia Sera. The spouses lived with Sophia’s parents in Baliwasan Grande; Sukarno was jobless, had jealous tendencies, threatened Sophia with a Batangas knife, and quarreled with her. On November 23, 1980, Sophia was killed in circumstances the prosecution proved to involve Sukarno, including the presence at the scene of Sukarno’s threatened knife and wristwatch, and Sukarno’s claim that he was “held up” by robbers despite inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
Sukarno claimed that he traveled to Isabela, Basilan and was allegedly robbed while with his wife near Pitul road. The trial court rejected his story as inherently incredible, found that the knife was the same used to threaten Sophia, found no credible robbery, and concluded that “it was the accused who attacked and killed his wife.” On appeal, counsel de oficio argued the relationship was not a valid marriage for purposes of parricide and questioned the presence of evident premeditation.
Issues:
- Whether Sukarno and Sophia’s relationship supported a conviction for parricide despite the claims regarding Muslim divorce and subsequent marriage.
- Whether evident premeditation was proven.
- Whether the trial court correctly appreciated mitigating circumstances and determined the proper penalty.
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the indemnity to P30,000. It rejected the claim that the marriage was invalid for purposes of parricide, applying the presumption of marriage validity and recognizing the divorce and remarriage as conforming to Muslim law as authorized by Presidential Decree No. 793 and within the framework of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. It also found that Sukarno’s killing of Sophia constituted parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code.
As to qualifying circumstances, the Court ruled that evident premeditation was not proven because no sufficient interval between determination and execution was shown. It likewise corrected the penalty: it ruled that passion and obfuscation were not mitigating, while voluntary surrender was extenuating, resulting in the imposition of the lesser penalty for parricide, still reclusion perpetua, with modification only as to the indemnity.
Ratio:
The Court held that Sukarno never questioned the validity of Sophia’s divorce and their marriage in the lower court, and he admitted the marriage and treated Sophia as his wife in his testimony. It invoked the rule of semper praesumitur pro matrimonio under Sec. 5(bb), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, and the Civil Code principle that every intendment leans toward the validity of marriage. The Court further relied on the authorization for divorce under Presidential Decree No. 793 (effective June 19, 1969) and the recognition of the ground of incompatibility under Sec. 52(g) of the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, and it noted that the enforceability of the Code in the absence of Shari’a courts had been recognized in Vda. de Maraug vs. Silapan, G.R. No. 64519, March 29, 1984.
On criminal liability, the Court sustained the trial court’s conclusion that Sukarno attacked and killed Sophia based on the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence and the rejection of his testimony as incredible. For penalty calibration, it ruled that evident premeditation was absent due to lack of proof of a sufficient time interval to reflect on and overcome the resolution of the will. It rejected passion and obfuscation as mitigating, but treated voluntary surrender to the authorities as extenuating, leading to the lesser penalty for parricide in accordance with Art. 63(3) of the Revised Penal Code; thus, the conviction remained but the indemnity increased.
Doctrine:
- The rule of *semper praesumitur pro matrimonio* applies, and every intendment of law or fact favors the validity of marriage.
- A killing of a spouse is punishable as parricide when the marital relationship is legally established for purposes of Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Evident premeditation requires proof of a sufficient interval of time between the determination and execution of the crime to allow reflection.
- Voluntary surrender is an extenuating circumstance that may reduce the penalty, while unsubstantiated claims of passion and obfuscation as mitigating are not credited.
- Where there is one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstances, Art. 63(3) of the Revised Penal Code calls for the imposition of the lesser penalty applicable.